I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.

OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".

In general, yes that has been my observation, though I will admit so seeing some pretty poor logic out of skeptics too. Albie is a prime example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).

It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".

Many are. Many others are not.

You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".

I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.

As I said, i agree with you on this, to a point. Certainly people like albie dont help our side in the least.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.

Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd..

Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.

--------------------------------------------------

(*) Hitler used concentration camps for much the same reason Roosevelt did : to lock up people considered a threat to national security. Forensic tests, Red Cross reports and other evidence shows that there were indeed large death tolls in some of the German concentration camps, however the main killers in these camps were typhus and typhoid. When the allies were carpet bombing German infrastructure, resources could no longer reach these camps making it impossible to stop the pandemic. The film The Relief of Belsen gives some insight in what really took place and is based on the testimonies of the British soldiers as they liberated Bergen-Belsen.
As rumours existed among Jews that Hitler was killing people with gas chambers, this was soon incorporated in black propaganda, linked to the high death toll and even made it to the Nuremberg show trials. However, there is no evidence that a single concentration camp inmate was ever gassed by the Germans. Neither is there any evidence that Hitler planned to kill all Jews. In fact, the claims that Hitler was exterminating Jews was largely forgotten until the Six Day war when zionists started using it for their own propaganda and the Holocaust Industry developed.

Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.

Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.

I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.

What about the Duesberg hypothesis on HIV and AIDS? What about Royal Rife's research? Is there sufficient evidence to dismiss these as pseudo-science? I find it hard to find any...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.

Unfortunately, this is the case both for so-called "skeptics" and so-called "conspiracy theorists".

I have looked at them both and not found it convincing, but to each his own.

I know only little about Rife's work (although I find his story fascinating), but I have looked into the arguments of Duesberg and as a layman I find no arguments to disprove him. IMO, this gives him as a prominent scientist at least the benefit of a doubt.

I know only little about Rife's work (although I find his story fascinating), but I have looked into the arguments of Duesberg and as a layman I find no arguments to disprove him. IMO, this gives him as a prominent scientist at least the benefit of a doubt.

Some of Duesburgs assertions that are obviously bunk:

4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.

University Clinic Hamburg.OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of KS in HIV-positive women METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and immunological data of ten women with biopsy-proven KS living in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 39.7 years. KS was the first AIDS defining event in 9 and reason for testing in 3. Mean CD4-count was 215/yl. 2 patients were of African origin. 5 patients were heterosexually infected. All but one, a prostitute, had a bisexual HIV-positive partner, 3/4 partners had KS. 3 women were IVDU. 2, possibly all 3, had been prostitutes. Initially, 8 patients had limited, 2 widely disseminated disease. Only 1 patient has not progressed. 6 patients died after a mean follow-up of 16.7 months (range 7 to 43). In 4, death was at least partly attributed to end-stage KS. Survival was longer for non IVDU and for patients with higher CD4-counts at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: KS runs a particularly aggressive course in women. Our data are consistent with a sexually transmissible etiologic agent of KS. Prostitution, an issue yet to be addressed by other authors reporting series of women with KS, was reported in 4 of our patients Further studies need to clarify the significance of this finding.

(1)
AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

It took me all of five seconds to find an article in The Lancet on a heathcare worker infected by a patient, and many more where heathcare workers have infected patients.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.

University Clinic Hamburg.OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of KS in HIV-positive women METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and immunological data of ten women with biopsy-proven KS living in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 39.7 years. KS was the first AIDS defining event in 9 and reason for testing in 3. Mean CD4-count was 215/yl. 2 patients were of African origin. 5 patients were heterosexually infected. All but one, a prostitute, had a bisexual HIV-positive partner, 3/4 partners had KS. 3 women were IVDU. 2, possibly all 3, had been prostitutes. [...] Prostitution, an issue yet to be addressed by other authors reporting series of women with KS, was reported in 4 of our patients.

So Duesberg was inaccurate. This doesn't disprove his hypothesis, though.

Note the marked words. All but one had a bisexual HIV-positive partner. 3/4 of partners had KS and the one that didn't have an HIV-positive partner was a prostitute. Duesberg attributes the homosexual variation of AIDS to the use of poppers. Considering this data, the use of poppers is far from unlikely. In fact, it is remarkable that of male partners only 3/4 had KS, however it makes sense considering they were in a heterosexual relationship and poppers are mostly used for widening the anus for anal sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

It took me all of five seconds to find an article in The Lancet on a heathcare worker infected by a patient, and many more where heathcare workers have infected patients.

Because the healthcare worker had been tested, as required by law, just the week before, had a patient who was HIV+, and while attempting to resuscitate him was accidentally stuck by a needle containing his blood. Given the patients known HIV+ status, she was put on leave, and later tested positive. She did not fit into ANY of the risk groups, and this was the sole incident that could have caused the infection. Here in Denver, we recently had a similar incident, only it was the mans ribs that did the sticking. He had been in a car accident and they had missed a couple of rib fractures on intake. The man coded, and during CPR, one of the man's ribs punctured the skin, glove, and finally the skin of the nurse performing the CPR. Big surprise that she came down HIV+ the next time she was tested.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Because the healthcare worker had been tested, as required by law, just the week before, had a patient who was HIV+, and while attempting to resuscitate him was accidentally stuck by a needle containing his blood. Given the patients known HIV+ status, she was put on leave, and later tested positive. She did not fit into ANY of the risk groups, and this was the sole incident that could have caused the infection.

This doesn't prove ANYTHING. If you had researched the Duesberg hypothesis, you'd understand that. According to the Duesberg hypothesis, a positive HIV test is actually quite common and unrelated to AIDS.

Maybe you should actually research the Duesberg hypothesis before coming up with this sort of strawman arguments. I suggest you start by watching the 2 hour documentary HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud and move on from there.